"With the release of Mac OS X for x86 processors, Apple has chosen to not release source to key components of the OS, such as the kernel and all drivers. This means Darwin/x86 is dead in the water; Darwin/ppc has many closed source components and is a deprecated architecture." Read more here.

Since IANAL, wouldn't it be possible to take the BSD code and GPL (or any other license, please don't take literally the word) it, so that it could be a bit "safer" against this kind of behaviour?

Anyway, I think that Apple did exactly what a closed company was supposed to do. I don't think there is any space for complaining: whoever released code to darwin under the BSD license (or whatever license Apple enforced) knew this could happen.

> Since IANAL, wouldn't it be possible to take the BSD
> code and GPL (or any other license, please don't take
> literally the word) it, so that it could be a bit
> "safer" against this kind of behaviour?

Yes and no. You can take BSD-licensed code and distribute it under GPL. This is especially useful if you want to make changes and *not* have them exploited by companies without giving back. However, the original code would still be there.

It's the same argument why BSD-licensed code cannot be "closed", although there are many who claim otherwise (mainly from the GPL camp). What they actually mean is that you can create a closed distribution of BSD-licensed code and modifications. But whatever you do will not affect the original code.

It's the same argument why BSD-licensed code cannot be "closed", although there are many who claim otherwise (mainly from the GPL camp). What they actually mean is that you can create a closed distribution of BSD-licensed code and modifications. But whatever you do will not affect the original code.

thing is tho that any changes done to the original code that can benifit the closed version they can potentialy merge. but any changes done to the closed code cant be merged into the open code.

basicly the relasionship is more parasitic then symbiotic (if i got those term right)...

under the GPL however, they either release the changes, or they cant legaly use the GPL code.

ok, so its a lot less free in the strict sense, but as the saying goes: if you dont protect your freedom you risk having it taken away from you...

There is no longuer any argument. BSD-Licensed code can be closed and can be switched to another restrictive license. Derivative are BSD-licensed code that whas closed.

"although there are many who claim otherwise (mainly from the GPL camp)."

No , many who are right and who come from the BSD Open Source and Free software camp.

"What they actually mean is that you can create a closed distribution of BSD-licensed code and modifications. "

No , what they mean is that there is nothing legal in the license that protect the code from being closed or switched to a restrictive license.

"But whatever you do will not affect the original code."

In real Open Source there is no Derivative , the code is always Open Source , in real free software the code is always free for all to use legally because the main freedom are guarantedd and protected at all time , you receive the same right that where given to you.

That wouldn't protect from bad behaviour ... just consider the khtml-webcore debate. The GPL regulates redistribution. So this would still remain, in fact, this is what Apple did with webcore:
"Because the source drops occurred only when Apple made a binary release (and by the time bits hit the public, Apple developers were already hard at work on the next release), it was impossible to tell what bugs were already fixed,..."

So yeah, the GPL would probably protect against closing down parts of the source code, but that wouldn't help much. With that kinda unwillingness to cooperate and lack of openness, darwin is dead any way, the only difference is the dying process would be somewhat longer.

LGPL or GPL, both cover that if the code itself have been changed, you have to make said changes available to whoever get the binary somhow.

only diff between the LGPL and the GPL is linking. the GPL says that any code that link to GPL code, allso come under the GPL (this is why some see it as viral). under the LGPL its ok to link, without going (L)GPL.

this is why stuff like SDL is under the LGPL, that way people can make games based on the librarys without having to open up their code.

so if all apple did was link the khtml code with some inhouse code, they dont have to hand out anything. but if they change anything inside the khtml code the have to release said changes alongside any binarys.

atleast thats my interpetation of how things work, but im no lawyer...

Since IANAL, wouldn't it be possible to take the BSD code and GPL (or any other license, please don't take literally the word) it, so that it could be a bit "safer" against this kind of behaviour?

That would make you liable for copyright infringment. Why would you need to do this? The original code will forever be BSD licensed.

I don't think there is any space for complaining: whoever released code to darwin under the BSD license (or whatever license Apple enforced) knew this could happen.

Nope, the only ones complaining are those that think GPL is better. This is what Scott Long (from FreeBSD) had to say about similar issue: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2006-February/00482......snip...A good example is my work with the UDF filesystem in FreeBSD. Shortly after I checked it in, I was contacted by SGI about them wanting to incorporate it into IRIX. Since it was BSD licensed, they we allowed to. Over a few months they fed back a few comments that resulted in bug fixes, but they never sent in code or patches, and they didn't share any of the new features that they had added. But that's ok, my had no expectations that they owed me anything in return, I was simply happy to share and pleased that they found my work good enough to reuse for themselves. But, it's a personal choice. I could have just as easily GPL'd the code before checking it in (which would have still been allowed) and then demanded that anyone working on it share. In the end, SGI probably would have looked elsewhere. There are pros and cons to both approaches...snip

I've been saying it for years now, Apple never cared about open source. They've stood on the shoulders of giants to get their translucent, animated desktop up and running, and they've given very little in return to the community.

under the terms of the BSD license, they are within their rights doing it, but its all the more reason to release your projects under GPL in the future. Unless you don't mind having your work exploited.

"under the terms of the BSD license, they are within their rights doing it, but its all the more reason to release your projects under GPL in the future. Unless you don't mind having your work exploited."

Just because Apple refrains from releasing modified source code doesn't render the original source code non-existant. Besides the GPL is another can of worms so complicated that if you ask a hundred persons what it entails you get a hundred different answers. Licenses should be straight forward and easily understandable, otherwise there's a big risk of finding something intentionally or unintentionally fishy in them later on.

Actually your wrong , Apple will work on newer hardware , where as the original they took and modified and added driver for it will not , making the old code non-existant on newer platform.

"Besides the GPL is another can of worms so complicated that ... different answers. "

No , You got some FUD and lie from the BSD camp and Open Source camp , but the GPL is real Open Source and is real Free software at all time , you are giving the right which yourself have received.

" Licenses should be straight forward and easily understandable, otherwise there's a big risk of finding something intentionally or unintentionally fishy in them later on."

Nothing fishy in the GPL it protect the code from being closed and not Open Source for any reason. Thats what The thief liar and traitor dont like , they are removed the advantage given by the other license.

I find your post quite ironic - you speak of FUD and lie form the BSD camp. That's quite insulting and trollish. The BSD camp - those who release code under the BSD or similar license have different goals: get code as widespread as possible, and if nothing is returned, we still get better quality software overall. I can respect that, just as I can respect the GPL and the people behind it. Thief, liar and traitor? Are you out of your mind? You might disagree with parent poster, but that's not rational reasoning you present to counter his claims, it is much closer to FUD (you associate one opinion with the BSD and open source camp in general) itself.

I am certain that BSD is Lying , stealing and traitor to the Open Sourcre and free software cause , GNU/Linux developper are almost all ex BSD.

There is no doubt in my mind that if we dont oppose them and destroy them all they will close , steal and remove every single right that we do name and protect.
Because thats what they did to me , its not an automatic but over time someone always does.

Whats is bad and should be outlawed , stealing open Source code , closing it for the advantage of a few , no one can improve upon it , thats the BSD way.

If source code as no value why is it that Apple send its lawyer when people are trying to improve and open it to others ? why is it not sharing the improvment back ? Because they whant to be the only one to profit from it.

They've stood on the shoulders of giants to get their translucent, animated desktop up and running

*Wow*
That sound's like a lot of envy (taking into account that there are several OSS projects trying to get a "translucent, animated desktop" like OSX).

While I think that OSS is something good, I really don't like "OSS preachers" like you who try to impose their will and world view on others.
Funny how people claiming that diversity is a good thing all of a sudden get narrow minded and claiming only "one true way" when it comes to things like using "the right OS", "the right desktop", "the right licence", etc..

People releasing code under a BSD licence obviously don't mind that their code is used in that way. They sure don't do it by mistake so your conclusion that people are exploited and everybody should use the GPL instead is just silly.

If you write software and you'd like to put it under GPL - fine, do it! But don't tell others what they should or should not do!

No , since its a BSD follower article ;-) , they just realised hey , BSD is CRAP , the GPL guy where right.
The actual code whas BSD transluscent code ;-)

"While I think that OSS is something good"

No , you dont think ;-)

"I really don't like "OSS preachers" like you who try to impose their will and world view on others."

I dont like your alternative , and your stealing and lying and treacherous actions , everything closed and owned by a few. Your trying to say dont complain you made the mistake of releasing BSD code , those people believe the lie YOU , LIAR , THIEF AND TRAITOR told them that BSD IS ( When its not ) Open SOurce , and free Software.

"Funny how people ... "the right licence", etc.. "

Diversity in Apple Mac OS X ? ROFLLLLLLLL , please ...

"People releasing code under a BSD licence obviously don't mind that their code is used in that way."

Actually most of them did , they make the backbone of the GPL ;-) , and you just lost a new bunch of developper who learned the hard way that you lied , stole and tricked them into that trap.

" They sure don't do it by mistake so your conclusion that people are exploited and everybody should use the GPL instead is just silly. "

Its a BSD site who wrote a BSD article about Apple , LOL , Stop fantasizing that everything is from the GPL camp , this one is all yours ;-) and its you who is silly , face reality ...

"If you write software and you'd like to put it under GPL - fine"

No , its better then fine its perfect and the only way.

"But don't tell others what they should or should not do!"

We will tell other what they should do and how , because where all ex BSD who know the truth.

BSD IS CRAP ' BSD IS CRAP ' BSD IS NOT OPEN SOURCE AND IS NOT FREE SOFTWARE , YOUR SILLY ' MORON AND CLUELESS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IF YOU SUPPORT THAT YOUR A THEIF A LIARD AND TRAITOR !

I think the point that the OP was trying to make (as I interpret it), is that Rob Braun hasn't really got a moral high-ground from which to bitch about Apple, since he released his code under the BSD license.

Sure, Rob can gripe about how Apple have treated external developers, he's welcome to do that as much as he likes, but he wrote his code under the BSD license, so Apple are (legally; morally could be seen as a different issue) within their rights to do what they have done. That may not fit the historical examples of how BSD-licensed code is treated (often in a more GPL-ish way, if not entirely GPL-ish), but if you provide code to Apple (or any third party) under a BSD or BSD-style license, and then expect to get immediate visibility of their changes to that code, then you do not have a realistic understanding of the BSD license.

I have full sympathy for Rob and other developers who have helped Apple on a "gentleman's agreement" that Apple will provide CVS access and other features to approved external developers, but the BSD license requires no such thing, and if Rob took it on assumption that Apple would always stay that way, then he has now found out that he was wrong.

Of course, there's no alternative - since Apple chose the BSD-licensed BSD codebase as their starting point, he couldn't have said "I'll give my code, but only under the GPL" as Apple wouldn't have been able to accept the code under those terms anyway, so the deal has always been "BSD or nothing" ... if what Apple originally made available was "BSD plus some access to CVS for certain external developers", and gradually pulled the "plus" stuff, then they've not done anything (legally) wrong.

My personal take is that Apple have taken the piss out of some generous individuals, but that is why I dislike the BSD license for most serious applications (for trivia, like textbook examples, etc, I think that the BSD license is the only sensible way to avoid frivolous lawsuits, though). It's also why I wouldn't personally be inclined to put major effort into BSD-licensed code - why bother, if someone can take it, and (without even saying "Thanks!" any more) claim it as their own.

It's also why I wouldn't personally be inclined to put major effort into BSD-licensed code - why bother, if someone can take it, and (without even saying "Thanks!" any more) claim it as their own.

This is completely wrong and another myth that keeps being believed by the GPL proponents.

- You can NOT change the license of BSD licensed code. Not possible in any way. The only party that can change the license is the owner of the copywright (the author/company usually).

- You can NOT claim the code as your own. You must still retain the copywrith notice of the original code or you break the license.

- The only thing you can do is to keep any modifications to the original code under any license that you see fit BUT you cannot change the license of the original code. You also do not have to distribute any of those changes.

Thus, the original code remains forever under the BSD license. If you try to claim it as your own or try to change the license you break the license and are liable for copyright infringement.

The only thing that you are correct about is that they do not have to say "thanks". But they do need to let people know they are using your sourcecode.

> under the terms of the BSD license, they are within
> their rights doing it, but its all the more reason to
> release your projects under GPL in the future. Unless
> you don't mind having your work exploited.

Sadly, there are more things to consider than you'd like to admit. For example, if you intend to create a desktop OS which you want to play all those nice MP3s, videos and so on, then the GPL might not be the right thing for you. The codec for (some of) these things might have to be closed-source, for legal reasons. When you choose the GPL from the beginning, you're stuck as soon as you get contributions from other people, because you'd have to ask them to change the license.

The LGPL may help here, but then it has that little clause saying that you have to provide re-linkable object files of the non-GPL'ed code, which can get you in trouble too. (BTW, a technically very specific restriction that may cause yet other trouble in situations where re-linkable objects do not exist in that way. How a judge interprets this clause then is open to your imagination).

The sad truth is your a liar , some distribution choose not to include it , or not to include it in there free version , by choice and for liar like you it become an illegal thing to do.

Gnu/Linux distribution that dont include it by default , choose not to pay for contributing to that scam , you whant them go and download them as an user they are free. When your a company selling them you have to pay royalty.

No codec as any valid reason to be closed source except for predatory practice and be the only one to profit from it and to control it.

Your a liar and a moron who dont know what the hell he is talking about.

This is exactly why the Linux NTFS project MUST remain under the GPL and can not be released under the APL or a BSD license. Apple has already shown that they're going to try to exploit whatever code they can receive with the KHTML (they submitted the changes back very late when they weren't very useful, then after that, when they moved to CVS, they also put another layer on top of it (WebCore) with the sole intent of stopping KDE from using it, fearing that KDE would become better than Mac OS X, and this just further goes to show it. Why couldn't Apple develop KHTML, KJS, etc. in KDE's CVS and let everyone benefit, including them? Why did they need to put a layer on top of it? What REAL benefit did it provide that wouldn't have been possible otherwise? I haven't seen anyone answer those questions yet.

Why couldn't they develop KHTML and KJS in KDE'CVS ? Simply because they both depend on Qt/KDE, so Apple couldn't use them directly for Safari, the abstraction layer they have add on top of them is meant to port khtml and kjs to their own widgets, and it has allowed nokia to port khtml to gtk.

And I do think that they don't release darwin/x86 source code, as it would allow to run MacOSX on a non-Mac x86 which they are trying to prevent.

If that was actually true and WebCore was just an abstraction layer, I'd have no problem with it, but WebCore modifies the rendering of HTML and JavaScript. Its not just an abstraction layer, its Apple's customizations to the rendering engine as well.

I never have used Apple software. So i am not your "apple fan boy". but according to me they are taking care of their customer needs pretty well. infact from what i hear ,read and see their customers are pretty loyal and ecstatic about Apple products. They just don't care about giving back to OSS community, which they are within their rights to do

---------------One has to wonder why Apple even bothers to release non-GPL'd source at all, if it is unwilling to cooperate with external developers to increase their return on investment and accept external bug fixes and features. Even worse, one has to wonder why people would want to donate their time to such a fruitless and pointless cause.---------------

Apple does so, so that they can claim they didn't just rip off the code. So they can say "well we gave it back!".

Apple has never been a good team player, they're computers are much more like your average closed/set-top-box(your cable box) than they are like a computer which is highly configurable and interchangable. Their software is the same.

I often call a mac a permanent loan. Sure you buy it take it home and use it until it stops working or sell it to someone else, but it'll always remain Apple's computer. It's never truely yours.

Apple has never been a good team player, they're computers are much more like your average closed/set-top-box(your cable box) than they are like a computer which is highly configurable and interchangable. Their software is the same.

I often call a mac a permanent loan. Sure you buy it take it home and use it until it stops working or sell it to someone else, but it'll always remain Apple's computer. It's never truely yours.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant pc's (personal/home computers) rather than computers , which have historically been closed architectures.

The Apple II was the original "open architecture" home computer, including schematics, source code and specs with every pc sold. The (IBM) PC at the time was stricly controlled by IBM and was only forced open after many lawsuits (reverse engineering BIOS) and when clone makers (and customers) subsequently rejected IBMs PS/2 architecture, an attempt to take back a measure of control over pc architecture.

Apple wants a one-way relationship with the OSS community. They want to take as much as possible and "do the bare minimum" to comply with the GPL where necessary. There is absolutely no value in them doing anything else with the limited resources they have on hand. Do they care if they contribute back anything useful, I certainly don't think so. From their perspective, "who gives a sh*t about some pissed off geeks". It's not like much "innovation" has come back downstream (or ever will). Read the APSL. There are some good reasons it is despised by the FSF. Think twice before you license anything with that crap. Hopefully, this is a signal that their failed Darwin effort is going to finally die off and they can stop raping the OSS community once and for all.

The flipside of the coin is that if the BSD license wasn't so permissive, it wouldn't have been used by Apple. Apple would *never* have gone with GPLed code. End result: Apple would never used open source code, wouldn't have improved it's OS by so much (OS X is a major leap over OS 9), and would never have considered donating anything back.

And Apple have donated software back to the open source community. And the goal of the BSD license is, in fact, that people use the code to improve software in general. Better software in general = happy BSD developers.

"I think the same issues with trying to run OS X on non-Apple hardware would bite you."

Not trying to run OSX.

OSXine would be trying to run applications that would normally run under OSX. (PS: I'm pretty sure applications are not supposed to get involved in hardware issues - they are supposed to leave that to the OS).

OSXine would do this via an "API translation layer" - where "API" stands for "Application Porgramming Inetrface".

This approach entirely gets around any attempt by Apple to claim protection under the DMCA - since no-one is trying to "crack" or "circumvent" or even run OSX itself.

What the OSS community needs to do in response is a "OSXine". As in "OSXine Is Not An Emulator". As in a "Wine for OSX_86 applications".

Run all Macintosh OSX_86 applications on your Linux box.

Should be a lot easier to do than the original Wine itself.

Take a look at http://developer.apple.com/macosx/architecture/index.html
How would reimplementing 2 full APIs including advanced stuff like Quartz plus libraries like coreImage and coreVideo be "easier than wine" ? Especially since years, by now decades, of open source effort so far haven't produced anything remotely similar.

That's not to say it couldn't be done. With a budget of a couple hundred million dollars and the best hackers of the Gnome, KDE and Enlightenment projects you could possibly be in beta in about 5 years.

"How would reimplementing 2 full APIs including advanced stuff like Quartz plus libraries like coreImage and coreVideo be "easier than wine" ? Especially since years, by now decades, of open source effort so far haven't produced anything remotely similar."

Easier than Wine because Linux is a Unix work-alike and so is OSX.

Easier because Wine itself has given the developers involved years of experience writing a translation layer.

You seem to have trouble grasping what a translation layer actually is. What it most decidedly IS NOT is replacement libraries for Quartz, coreImage and coreVideo. Rather, it just translates the calls made by OSX_86 applications to those libraries into equivalent calls to existing Linux libraries.

You seem to have trouble grasping what a translation layer actually is. What it most decidedly IS NOT is replacement libraries for Quartz, coreImage and coreVideo. Rather, it just translates the calls made by OSX_86 applications to those libraries into equivalent calls to existing Linux libraries.

Where are these magical Linux libraries and why haven't they been used to recreate OSX-like fuctionality for Gnome/KDE yet ?

What Linux has at the moment are hacks, alpha code that can look vaguely like what OSX does only slower and less stable. Who wants to build a translation layer on top of that ?

Don't be gratuitously offensive. I love my mac, but have run lots of different OS's on a lot of different architectures from C64 over Amiga to AIX and Windows and OSX.

A Macintosh application might want to draw a window, set up a menu, render some fonts, play a sound, receive a message when the mouse is clicked, detect a keystroke ... stuff like that.

You seriously underestimate OSX libraries such as coreImage the amount of work it takes to integrate all that functionality and most importantly to get it working well and fast with 100% compatibility.

Also it's a safe bet OSX is more complicated (containing more recent advancements) than the circa 2000 win32 API wine is trying to emulate. And keep in mind Wine had been going since 1993 and has needed 13 years to become what it is now.

Especially since years, by now decades, of open source effort so far haven't produced anything remotely similar.

It's not for lack of ability. It's the lack of motivation. Until recently Linux didn't have the compatibility/ease-of-use needed to make it on the mainstream desktop. I think the Linux Desktop has made huge strides the past few years and now there is motivation to make a shiny accelerated desktop. Also the extrememly large number of applications tied to X didn't help when XFree was standing still.

WINE gives users access to millions of Windows software titles. Reimplementing the OS X APIs isn't worth the effort just to get a few hundred OS X apps. Having said that, CoreFoundation has already been ported to Linux and GNUStep has the majority of Cocoa APIs, so there is already decent API coverage if someone wanted to start such a project.

that even without Darwin in the future some hacker will figure out how to do it.

Yes. But it should be a lot easier and faster if you can just modify and recompile the source code.

Cracked copies are less interesting if you can only get old versions e. g. when it takes more time to crack a version than Apple needs to release the next few updates or major OS release, the "cracking game" loses some of its appeal ..

It would be nice if those self-appointed "heroes of freedom" would stopp warezing OSX because they only going to hurt regular Apple customers and people interested in open source by forcing Apple to implement protecting schemes or - as we see now - closing their sources.

"...forcing Apple to implement protecting schemes or - as we see now - closing their sources."

Yes. Forcing may be the wrong word.

Apple has another alternative: to sell customers what they want to buy. This is what any reasonable business management team would do. As far as we can see, what customers (not all, but a significant number) want to buy is (1) Apple hardware that will boot and run Windows (2) Non-Apple hardware that will boot and run OSX. We may not ourselves want to buy either, but there is nothing particularly unreasonable about them, and a rational management team would figure out some way to sell both and make money at it.

And don't say its impossible. It clearly isn't. If they could invent the iPod, they could easily manage to do it.

"As far as we can see, what customers (not all, but a significant number) want to buy is (1) Apple hardware that will boot and run Windows (2) Non-Apple hardware that will boot and run OSX."

You forgot about (3) customers who don't give a fig about Apple, OSX, Apple hardware or non-Apple hardware - but who would pay for and run (on hardware they already owned) an OSX application that satisfied a need they had.

I call that an unrealistic sense of entitlement. You want to run OS X applications on your white-box PC running Windows/Linux? Tough shit. OS X applications are what make the Mac platform fun and easy to use.

Apple has another alternative: to sell customers what they want to buy. This is what any reasonable business management team would do.

Er, no. The calculation is to make the bits consumers do want compelling enough to make them put up with the bits they don't want. In this case, the bit they don't want is running OS X on Mac-only hardware. It's hard to see that changing soon, though, because a general x86 OS X would be cracked and pirated in its millions in a jiffy, quite apart from the loss of hardware sales for Apple.

From Apple's POV, something like a 1 per cent increase in share of the total PC market translates to a 50 per cent increase in Apple's customer headcount. Apart from the hassle of growing that fast, they can limit the availability of OS X and still do fabulously well.

Just my 2 cents, but I found the article self-pitying and unattractive. So at one time Apple accepted inputs from outsiders who must have known what was likely to happen. It does not follow that today Apple should open up their OS in a way that might make ripping it off much less difficult. If you don't like Apple, don't use a Mac. There are only 200++ other BSDs and Linuxes to choose from.

OpenDarwin. Lets support Plan9. It is open and has some good points. And there is always Linux/Solaris/BSD/Syllabe/Haiku/Aros. Do not support OpenDarwin. Take all the good OSS stuff and inject it to the other OSS projects. It is ridiculous. You can run Gnustep on some of them instead. You can port darwinbuild to one of them. I indicated Plan9 because it has good points. Even DragonflyBSD needs also help with its ports collection and it is promising. Why the f^^^ should we support Apple when Mathew Dillon needs help. Darwin is mistaken as an OSS operating system and as a biologist. If you want something ready to port, you can also help Slackware. At least it is Linux.

I don't mind. I prefer BSD licensed code. It would only show that those companies care truly only about one thing, them selves. I'm fine with that. I'm not ok with the wolf-in-sheep-clothes "supporting" for the goodwill looks. The truly supportive ones give their code as BSD licensed. If you think this would make less BSD licensed code then you are quite wrong, some of us believe in the goodness of mankind and we give without requesting anything in return. What we give will forever stay free and open

And I must say: what a bunch of pathetic entries I read here. There clearly is a war going on; when I close my eyes I'm seeing people burning Tux flags and others setting fire to buildings of companies that support BSD.

Aren't we all grown-ups? Cut the crap, each license model has its own pros and cons. Defend your own, that's fine, but please don't be childish.

Apple did not tread any legal boundaries and does what it wants to do as a company. Apple customers just want Macs that work and happily pay for them, totally not caring about what the OSS community thinks or wants. And Apple knows that.

Mac OS X is 100% built on Open Source. Your not an outsisder , your just clueless about that fact.

"Aren't we all grown-ups?"

No , Most GNU/Linux developper come from where ? answer : BSD , they switched to it because they got fed up to be taken advantage of. Most of the new ( Yougn ) BSD developper have been lied to , and told that BSD is Open Source and Free software , hence why this article is a remake of the past.

"Apple did not tread any legal boundaries"

Actually one can argue that the BSD clause dont provide the right to close the code and to switch it to another license. Yes its beeing done everyday and is the norm , but is it truely legal ?

"totally not caring about what the OSS community thinks or wants. "

Then why should we care what you think ? Your a silent asssociate and partner in crime with Apple.

Please feel free to show me in the BSD clause the line that say :

- Its allowed to switch the license to something else.
- Its a right to close the derivative source code to all others.

I did. Apple build on top of the shoulder of giants who are Open Source , they take and never contribute back there change or let others build on top of there changes. You would know this add you done you homework or truely known the subject.

BSD came first not Mac OS X ... One helped build the other , the other kill improvment and research and community on the first.

Why would apple release their code back to darwin. Am I the only one that things this would seriously cut into apple's bottom line if that happens. I'll imagine if the source is my trade secret I'd want to do just that.. Keep it a secret.

I don't know whats the fuss about, obviously no one was tricked into releasing code under a bsd license. So there is no one to blame. And this is much ado about nothing.

I think a lot of people don't understand why people are upset at Apple over what they are doing and their lack of open source efforts. Its pretty simple. When you talk to Apple, they say "we support open source software". When you visit Apple's site, they say "we develop open source software". Infact, surf around Apple's site for a couple minutes and you'll likely find a page mentioning open source. Visit their open source website: http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Look at the first sentence of the first paragraph in bold:
As the first major computer company to make Open Source development a key part of its ongoing software strategy, Apple remains committed to the Open Source development model.

Apple is NOT making open source development a key part of its software strategy and does NOT use use a real Open Source development model.

Look at the last sentence in bold:
In addition, Apple uses software created by the Open Source community, such as the HTML rendering engine for Safari, and returns its enhancements to the community.

Apple once again is NOT really returning the enhancements to the community. Apple saying that they are working with the community and support the open source software development model is total BS. If you want to see how the open source development model works, look at Novell, Red Hat, Intel, etc. They show how it works.

Apple is claiming they are supporting open source just as much as these companies, when they are just using open source software. Other companies support it but don't support the development model. While I'm sure people did, since they are very upfront and straightforward about it, these companies rarely hear these kind of attacks. A great example of this kind of company is NVIDIA. They admit "we see people using open soruce software and want to help them out but choose not to participate in the open source development model".

Look at what Apple is doing. They're screaming "we support and develop open source software" when they don't contribute back to whoever started their open source projects, but instead always make their own repositories that are difficult to merge changes back into the upstream vendor, often not even releasing the repositories until they are forced to by the requirements of a license. If Apple just publicly said on their site "We use open source software" and left it at that, and didn't make any claim about working with the community or being an active open source software developer, they wouldn't have nearly as many issues like this, as that would be telling the truth.

The reason I'm upset (I can only speak for myself) is because Apple uses all this OSS software then touts it as a buzzword, when they really aren't giving that much back, and are cooperating only when necessary.

From the Mac zealot point of view, they think its awesome that Apple does give stuff back (which, in the case of GPL software, they have to). The BSD stuff I'm fine with them doing whatever they want with it, and not open sourcing it in return. That's anyone's right.

But, I'll believe that Apple is really open-source firendly when I finally see *native* support for Ogg audio codecs on QuickTime and the iPod.

I'm pretty sure Apple contributes to Open Source. As a web developer, I need to make sure my work stays compatible with different browsers, so I keep a WebKit SVN repository checked out and up to date, and reports to Apple when their latest commits break my stuff. Every night, I can run svn update, and get all their changes from the previous day downloaded and updated in my copy. As they happen. This stuff isn't even out in their released Safari yet, but they still release this stuff as they make the changes. So don't give me bullshit that they don't release anything. And I have sent in patches back upstream to be committed to WebKit. So stop spreading FUD, and get your facts straight. And check out http://webkit.opendarwin.org/